-
Journal of Medical Imaging and... Mar 2021Gallbladder adenoma (GA) is a precancerous neoplasm and needs surgical resection. It is difficult to differentiate adenoma from other gallbladder polyps using imaging... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Gallbladder adenoma (GA) is a precancerous neoplasm and needs surgical resection. It is difficult to differentiate adenoma from other gallbladder polyps using imaging examinations. The aim of present systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the diagnosis of gallbladder adenoma.
METHODS
The searches were conducted by two independent researchers to find the relevant studies published from 1/1/2009 until end of 30/06/2019. The search included published literature in the English language in MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE via Ovid, The Cochrane Library, and Trip databases. For literature published in other languages, national databases (Magiran and SID), KoreaMed, and LILACS were searched. The risk of bias of every article was evaluated by using QUADAS-2. On the basis of the results from the 2 × 2 tables, pooled measures for sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under the curves (AUC) along with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the DerSimonian Lair methodology.
RESULTS
Overall, 868 patients were studied in the 10 studies chosen for inclusion. Of these 10 studies, 5 (50%) were retrospective and 5 (50%) were prospective. The total prevalence of gallbladder adenoma in 10 studies was 16% (95% CI 13%, 18%). The sensitivity and specificity of contrast-enhanced ultrasound were 0.846 (95% CI 0.818-0.871) and 0.870 (95% CI: 0.844-0.894), respectively. The diagnostic odds ratio was 40.807 (95% CI 18.838-88.393).
CONCLUSION
CEUS is a reliable, non-invasive, and no-radiation-exposure imaging modality with a high sensitivity and specificity for detection of gallbladder adenoma. Nonetheless, it should be applied cautiously, and large scale, well-designed trials are necessary to assess its clinical value.
Topics: Adenoma; Contrast Media; Diagnosis, Differential; Gallbladder Neoplasms; Humans; Ultrasonography
PubMed: 33129756
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmir.2020.09.014 -
Digestive Diseases and Sciences Jun 2023Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common malignancy in the US. Several factors are associated with increased/decreased CRC risk and often linked to adenomatous... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common malignancy in the US. Several factors are associated with increased/decreased CRC risk and often linked to adenomatous colorectal polyps (CRP). Recent studies suggest a lower risk of neoplastic lesions among irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) patients. We aimed to systematically assess the occurrence of CRC and CRP in IBS patients.
METHODS
Searches of the Medline, Cochrane, and EMBASE databases were performed, blindly and independently, by two investigators. Studies of CRC or CRP incidence in IBS patients (diagnosed by Rome or other symptom-based criteria) were eligible for inclusion. CRC and CRP effect estimates were pooled in meta-analyses using random models.
RESULTS
Of 4941 non-duplicate studies, 14 were included, comprising 654,764 IBS patients and 2,277,195 controls in 8 cohort studies, and 26,641 IBS patients and 87,803 controls in 6 cross-sectional studies. Pooled analysis revealed a significantly decreased prevalence of CRP in IBS subjects vs. controls, with a pooled odds ratio (OR) of 0.29 (95% CI (0.15, 0.54)). There was significant heterogeneity between studies (I = 96%, p < 0.01). This finding persisted when studies which did not report pre-cancerous polyps separately were excluded (OR 0.23, 95% CI (0.15, 0.35), I = 85%, p < 0.01). CRC prevalence was lower in IBS subjects, but this did not reach statistical significance (OR 0.40, 95% CI (0.09, 1.77]).
CONCLUSION
Our analyses reveal a decreased incidence of colorectal polyps in IBS, although CRC did not reach significance. Mechanistic studies with detailed genotypic analysis and clinical phenotyping are needed to better elucidate the potentially protective effect of IBS on CRC development.
Topics: Colonic Polyps; Irritable Bowel Syndrome; Colorectal Neoplasms; Incidence; Humans
PubMed: 36871131
DOI: 10.1007/s10620-023-07885-6 -
BMJ Open Gastroenterology 2020Circulating tumour DNA from colorectal cancer (CRC) is a biomarker for early detection of the disease and therefore potentially useful for screening. One such biomarker... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Circulating tumour DNA from colorectal cancer (CRC) is a biomarker for early detection of the disease and therefore potentially useful for screening. One such biomarker is the methylated SEPT9 (mSEPT9) gene, which occurs during CRC tumourigenesis. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to establish the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of mSEPT9 tests for the early diagnosis of CRC.
METHODS
A systematic search of the relevant literature was conducted using Medline and Embase databases. Data were extracted from the eligible studies and analysed to estimate pooled sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic test accuracy.
RESULTS
Based on 19 studies, the pooled estimates (and 95% CIs) for mSEPT9 to detect CRC were: sensitivity 69% (62-75); specificity 92% (89-95); positive likelihood ratio 9.1 (6.1-13.8); negative likelihood ratio 0.34 (0.27-0.42); diagnostic OR 27 (15-48) and area under the curve 0.89 (0.86-0.91). The test has a positive predictive value of 2.6% and negative predictive value of 99.9% in an average risk population (0.3% CRC prevalence), and 9.5% (positive predictive value) and 99.6% (negative predictive value) in a high-risk population (1.2% CRC prevalence).
CONCLUSION
The mSEPT9 test has high specificity and moderate sensitivity for CRC and is therefore a potential alternative screening method for those declining faecal immunochemical test for occult blood (FIT) or other screening modalities. However, it is limited by its poor diagnostic performance for precancerous lesions (advanced adenomas and polyps) and its relatively high costs, and little is known about its acceptability to those declining to use the FIT.
Topics: Colorectal Neoplasms; Diagnostic Tests, Routine; Early Detection of Cancer; Humans; Occult Blood; Septins
PubMed: 32128229
DOI: 10.1136/bmjgast-2019-000355 -
Surgical Endoscopy Sep 2020Colonoscopies are effective means of detecting and removing precancerous adenomatous polyps. The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a marker of colonoscopy quality and an... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Colonoscopies are effective means of detecting and removing precancerous adenomatous polyps. The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a marker of colonoscopy quality and an independent predictor of colorectal cancer incidence. Focused training interventions may improve an endoscopist's ADR, but the supporting research is limited. This systematic review and meta-analysis identified, critically appraised, and meta-analyzed data from randomized trials (RCTs) evaluating the effect of training interventions on ADRs.
METHODS
Ovid Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Eric, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for RCTs investigating the effect of an educational intervention on ADRs. Two reviewers independently screened, identified, and extracted trial-level data. Internal validity was assessed in duplicate using the Risk of Bias tool. Our primary outcome was the ADR. Secondary outcomes were advanced ADR, adenocarcinoma detection rate, polyp detection rate, and withdrawal times. Safety outcomes were post-polypectomy bleeding rate and colonoscopy-related perforation rate.
RESULTS
From 2837 screened citations, we identified 3 trials (119 endoscopists) meeting our inclusion criteria. Training interventions were associated with a trend toward increased ADRs (odds ratio 1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00-1.34; I 83%; 3 trials; 119 endoscopists). When limited to screening colonoscopies, the odds ratio for ADRs associated with training interventions was 1.17 (95% CI 1.00-1.36; I 80%; 3 trials; 119 endoscopists). There was a high level of heterogeneity between the trials' training interventions. Training intervention improved the advanced ADR, adenocarcinoma detection rate, polyp detection rate, and withdrawal times. Safety outcomes were not reported.
CONCLUSIONS
A focused training intervention was associated with a strong trend toward increased ADRs among certified endoscopists. While the described training interventions definitely show promise, further efforts around continuing professional developments activities are needed to more consistently improve ADRS among certified endoscopists.
Topics: Adenoma; Clinical Trials as Topic; Colonic Neoplasms; Colonoscopy; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Odds Ratio; Polyps; Publication Bias; Risk; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31595401
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-019-07153-7 -
Annals of Gastroenterology 2023Add-on devices with projections, e.g., Endocuff, Endocuff Vision, EndoRings, and Wingcap, placed on the distal tip of the colonoscope promise to improve the detection of...
BACKGROUND
Add-on devices with projections, e.g., Endocuff, Endocuff Vision, EndoRings, and Wingcap, placed on the distal tip of the colonoscope promise to improve the detection of precancerous lesions. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the performance of these devices exclusively among individuals undergoing colonoscopy for screening purpose.
METHODS
A computerized literature search was performed across MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases for randomized controlled trials that compared standard colonoscopy (SC) to procedures using add-on devices. The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR), while secondary outcomes included polyp detection rate (PDR), advanced ADR (AADR), and sessile serrated lesion detection rate (SSLDR). The effect size on study outcomes was calculated using a random-effects model and presented as the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS
Seven studies enrolling a total of 5785 patients were included. The use of add-on-devices with projections was associated with a higher ADR compared to SC: 45.9% vs. 41.1%; RR 1.18, 95%CI 1.02-1.37; P=0.03; =79%. Although PDR was higher in screening colonoscopies assisted by add-on devices as compared to SC, the difference failed to reach significance: 55.1% vs. 50.8%; RR 1.10, 95%CI 0.96-1.26; P=0.17; =75%. No difference was found between procedures assisted by add-on devices with projections and SC colonoscopies in terms of AADR (18.5% vs. 17.6%; RR 1.00, 95%CI 0.79-1.27; P=0.98; =56%) or SSLDR (6.8% vs. 5.8%; RR 1.17, 95%CI 0.95-1.44; P=0.15; =0%).
CONCLUSION
Colonoscopy assisted by add-on devices with projections achieves a better ADR compared to SC among individuals undergoing screening for bowel cancer.
PubMed: 37664236
DOI: 10.20524/aog.2023.0820